Jesse: Jim!
Jim: I'm back.
Jesse: Did you know that every time I create a transcript for an episode, Descript refers to you as Jim McQueen?
Jim: Jim McQueen, like I'm related to a race car.
Jesse: Or a famous action movie star.
Jim: Okay, that was my silver lining for the episode.
Jesse: Well, don't expect that silver lining to last because what podcast is this?
Jim: This is Committable.
Jesse: Perfect and now on to the mental health laws.
Jesse: This is Committable, a podcast about involuntary commitments. I'm Jesse Mangan and I'm here with Committable producer Jim McQuaid.
Jim: I'm excited to be here!
Jesse: (laughter)
Jim: This is so fun!
Jesse: (laughter)
Jim: I don't know if people are gonna realize that we record these things sometimes back to back, and so we're going into one feeling all of the sadness and rage.
Jesse: Yeah, when covering mental health laws the rage does tend to accumulate. But for this episode, while there may still be some rage, there will also be two amazing people sharing their insights because for this episode we are talking about mental health laws in Connecticut. And to learn more about those laws, I spoke with Kathy Flaherty.
Kathy Flaherty: My name is Kathy Flaherty. I am a lawyer and I am the executive director of the Connecticut Legal Rights Project. And we provide legal representation to people who are eligible for mental health services from the state of Connecticut, Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, which is abbreviated DMHAS. And we provide that representation on matters related to people's treatment, recovery, and civil rights.
Jesse: So every state has a different mental health law. How does involuntary detention and civil commitment in Connecticut work?
Kathy Flaherty: One of the ways people end up in the hospital is when the police intervene, uh, for somebody who's in mental health crisis and the police are able to fill out what's called a police emergency evaluation request, which is sometimes called a PEER. So basically what happens is if a person is in crisis and the police feel that it's a mental health issue, they can issue that order for detention and ask that a hospital evaluate the person. They are supposed to have a good reason for making that initial detention, and they have a form that they're required to fill out, which depending on what boxes get checked and what they write in for the description explains what their basis is for making that request to the hospital. There have been times where we have represented people in cases against police departments when based on the information that the police officer has provided on that form, there was no good reason for the deprivation of that person's rights.
Jesse: So we're talking about the involuntary detention part. So however someone arrives at the point where they're at a facility, whether it's a police officer, psychiatrist, physician, however they arrive there with this involuntary detention order, what happens then? What are their options then?
Kathy Flaherty: Well, what happens when they're brought to the emergency room, they're supposed to be evaluated by somebody because that's literally what the police are requesting, an emergency evaluation. And what can happen at that point is that, you know, the doctor in the emergency room can complete what we call in Connecticut, a physician's emergency certificate or a PEC. That's an order that authorizes a hospital to admit a person for observation for up to 15 days. So unfortunately, you know, they sign that and there's real, you can challenge it. And you have the right to ask the probate court to hold a probable cause hearing, but that's a very low standard that the facility has to meet. They just simply have to show it's probable that they had good enough cause to hold you to evaluate you. If a person requests that they have to do it in writing, usually they have a form available at the nurse's station for somebody to request that. And then a judge is required to come to the hospital within 72 hours to hold that probable cause hearing.
That's an issue that comes up a lot here because those hearings are held on the hospital unit. And if you sort of think about, you know, the way we all perceive courts as you know, big rooms judge up on an elevated bench flags, whatever. You don't have that when you have a probate court hearing in a psychiatric hospital. It’s usually held in a conference room, sometimes it's held in a conference room that's literally on the unit. So it's not like the person even gets brought off the unit to come to a separate building for court, and I think it's just human nature that that sort of tilts the scale of justice towards the facility because you're literally holding it at the facility.
But what can happen at that probable cause hearing is the judge can determine whether the patient gets discharged because there isn't probable cause, or whether the hospital can continue to hold them for the remainder of the 15 days. And that's a timeframe in which the hospital has to decide whether they're going to let the person go, or they're gonna petition for an order of civil commitment to be able to hold that person even longer.
Jesse: So in Connecticut, any police officer can initiate a Police Request for Emergency Evaluation, which allows that officer to involuntarily detain someone and force them into a hospital for evaluation. Once a person is detained at a hospital, they are supposed to be evaluated by a physician within 24 hours, and should not be held longer than 72 hours, unless that physician fills out a Physician Emergency Certificate or a PEC. If a PEC is filled out, then that person can be detained inpatient for up to 15 days.
Jim: When she first said 15 days, I thought I'd misheard her. I was like, there's no way it's that long. And then to set the bar so low is probable cause, I think you could take any random person off the street and make some kind of case for them. Especially if they're in some kind of weak social position. I mean, somebody who's younger, or lower economic class, or someone who just gets nervous and flustered, which is gonna be anybody in that situation.
Jesse: Yeah, probable cause is a really low bar to meet, especially in regards to forcibly detaining someone. But I think that's kind of the point. If a firm legal check on the authority of the hospital and its clinicians was actually the goal then there would be a rigorous demand from legislators that the state must prove that there is some form of imminent need to detain this person, and that hearing would be automatic. But my understanding is that in Connecticut the patient has to know enough about the system to request that probable cause hearing for it to actually happen.
Kathy Flaherty: Yeah, you basically, if you don't know to ask for that probable cause hearing, you know, you're probably gonna be there and I'm not gonna save the 15 days because here's really the reality of it I think in Connecticut. And this is why I sometimes tell people, you could go to court but the other way that you get out of a hospital is to go what we call the clinical discharge route, like you go when the doctors say you're ready to go. And for people in private hospitals what's frankly determining how long you stay there is what your insurance will cover, which means once they are fighting way too hard for each extra day the facility's probably gonna decide to discharge you. Because at a certain point they feel like the time spent on the administrative insurance stuff isn't worth whatever help they can give you.
But the particularly frightening thing about Connecticut's law is unlike in Massachusetts, where when you get committed you get committed for up to six months and at that six month timeframe the facility has a burden, once again, of either going to court to petition to keeping you longer, or getting out. So you know you're not gonna be there more than six months. In Connecticut, when you're civilly committed there is no timeframe. We are one of the outlier states that does not put a length on the term of commitment.
Jesse: Okay, so let's say a police officer sees someone and that person is acting in a way the police officer doesn't understand. Police officer brings that person to a hospital for an evaluation, and the physician thinks, yes, you have got enough evidence here to say this person should be held. So then you're held for up to 15 days, but at the end of that 15 days they can then apply for a civil commitment…
Kathy Flaherty: They have to have the application in for the civil commitment by the 15th day, or they have to let you go. But when they file that petition the court then has another 10 days to schedule that hearing. So unfortunately, it's like the timeframes just keep adding up and adding up and adding up. But what happens when the probate court schedules that hearing, this is the law, the patient has the right to receive notice of the hearing, to be present at the hearing, to cross-examine witnesses, and to have an attorney. And an attorney gets appointed by the probate court. The probate court sends two other doctors to evaluate the patient before the civil commitment hearing, they're supposed to be independent doctors who examine the patient. Those doctors are supposed to tell the person that the reason for their coming is this evaluation for the civil commitment and are basically almost an equivalent of Miranda rights to the person to say, you know, whatever you say can be used against you in a court of law, because that's what this.
You know, we fought in Connecticut to get these rights established but I wonder how often they actually really properly play out the way they're supposed to. But they're supposed to look at, when the court's deciding whether to grant that civil commitment, is the patient danger to themselves or others? Are they gravely disabled? And they're supposed to be looking at, are there less restrictive alternatives to get the person the help that they need. So we actually have a lawsuit pending in Connecticut right now because back in the late seventies, remember how I told you in Connecticut there's no time limit on this civil commitment. In the statute you're entitled to a review by the court every two years, and you're entitled to an annual clinical review, so that's once a year. But our state Supreme Court said back in ‘77 that that's unconstitutional because the person who's committed is being deprived of a fundamental liberty interest, their freedom. And people do get better in the hospital, especially at a state hospital where you're stuck there for years. People do get better and it's not proper to put the burden on the person to say, you should let me go. The burden should be on the facility when they think the person no longer meets the standard of danger to self, danger to others, or gravely disabled, they should be the ones going to court to petition for authority to continue to keep them because they know they don't really meet that thing anymore. And the court said,40 plus years ago that the current statute does not comply with the Constitution, fix it. And for whatever reason they've never fixed that part of it.
And the other issue that comes up is really when people are ready to leave the hospital, the lack of community supports, affordable housing and everything else, means that people end up staying in the hospital longer. Even though their teams think they're ready to leave. Which means they're being held in a more restrictive setting than they really need to be, and ought to be, and they should be getting out. So we filed a lawsuit back in 2018 but the wheels of justice grind very slowly.
Jesse: Okay, so if you are detained for evaluation and then a physician evaluates you and signs a Physician's Emergency Certificate, then you will be held inpatient for up to 15 days. During that 15 days you can request a probable cause hearing to determine whether or not there's any probable cause to believe that your involuntary detention is permitted by law. But if the judge decides that there is probable cause for you to be detained, or if you aren't familiar enough with the system to know that you can request a probable cause hearing, then you will continue to be detained until either a psychiatrist lets you go, or the facility applies for a civil commitment. The facility does have to file the paperwork for that civil commitment before the end of the 15 day period. But after the paperwork is filed you should get a civil commitment hearing within 10 days. And if the judge decides that there is adequate reason to believe that you need to be involuntarily detained in a psych facility for treatment, then you will be detained in that psych facility, essentially, until someone decides to let you go.
Jim: Oh my God.
Jesse: There is a required annual review by a physician, and every two years there is supposed to be a court hearing to review whether or not the facility can continue to detain you.
Jim: Okay.
Jesse: But realistically if the clinicians at the facility want to keep you, you can either attempt to make your case at a court hearing once every two years, or you can try to go the clinical discharge route.
Jim: I love all of these euphemisms, like the clinical discharge route, right? As if that's a choice on the part of the patient, right? The patient can choose the route of challenging their commitment and going to the courts or take the, you know, the “clinical discharge route”. Which I'm not criticizing the interviewee for using, I mean, you need a phrase. But the clinical discharge route, it's to completely submit to the authority of the institution and to say, I am going to just do whatever you tell me to do and submit completely in order to convince you to let me out. Jesse: Jim: Essentially yes, but we should be clear that no one should ever be shamed for choosing to comply with treatment. The decision of whether or not to comply with treatment is an incredibly personal one, and there are a lot of complicated factors to be considered. So every person should be supported in making that decision for themself. But that is not functionally what this system does. Within this system that choice is effectively an illusion. The reality is that if you choose not to comply with treatment that can lead to potentially indefinite detention, because the default position of the state is to allow that detention to continue.
Jim: It's so dehumanizing and so impersonal and depersonalizing and objectifying. I mean, you become an object, you become a thing, so that whatever you are gets erased and the process just becomes the thing that matters.
Jesse: That is often what it feels like. And we can look at data on the length of inpatient detention in Connecticut, the state actually has some pretty comprehensive information that is publicly accessible. But those numbers will never be able to really communicate what it feels like to be pushed through this system. It's really only people with lived experience that will be able to understand that. So to learn more about the practical reality of living through this system, I spoke with Mitzy Sky.
Mitzy Sky: My name is Mitzy Sky and I am a writer, a poet. I've been working in recovery, peer advocacy work since 2011 actually. My last peer recovery job was working at Advocacy Unlimited and I got to develop something called Compassionate Activism while I was there. And I was able to do that training since 2017 and until the end of 2022. And also, one of the things that I'm also involved with is Drop The Disorder. I don't know if you've ever heard of a Disorder For Everyone out of the UK, they have an annual conference. And just lots of places, there's lots of things happening and ways people could take care of themselves and be in this world. And that's what the Compassionate Activism training was about. It just included a whole lot of stuff just to share information with people. So for me, what would I say about me, myself? Well, I didn't know anything when I asked for help in this mental health system, and so all I wanna do is, as I gain information, is to share it with others and that's it. I don't think I do anything else but that.
Jesse: There can often be a conflict of identity when someone in distress seeks help, is diagnosed with a mental illness, disagrees with that diagnosis, but must accept it in order to be given access to necessary resources. So I asked Mitzy what sort of approach she might take to help someone understand that although they are being labeled, they don't necessarily have to identify with that label?
Mitzy Sky: That's a great question Jesse, and it makes me think of Dr. Paula Joan Caplin because that's one of, she worked a lot with veterans and that's one of the things that she would always tell the veterans, you know, you do need to get that disability money and services that you need. You need those services, but you don't need to keep those labels. But know that you're doing that to get what you need. Unfortunately, that's just how it works, and we wish it didn't but that's how it works. A lot of that work is what that Compassionate Activism is about. One-on-one with a person it's about the long-term, building that relationship, staying with that person. I'm just thinking of how hard it is really, how hard it is, and it's those things, those conscious and unconscious things that we learn. Because I remember, like, I remember Robert Whitaker sharing, he was like, it's white men in society, then white women, then black men, then black women, and then people labeled mentally ill, you know? And so who gets listened to? And so I'm right down there on the bottom. So trying to speak to someone who completely believes in everything that the system has done told them about themself, and getting a different voice from somebody that looks like myself, a black woman, was coming and saying, I'm a peer support person. That means I, you know, I've used these mental ill diagnoses and stuff. So that person is not gonna listen to me really. They're not gonna really hear too much of what I have to say. So, for me, it's just going and being with the person and just not judging. And the reason why I don't judge is because I came from the same place. I came from the same place, the same kind of thinking, the same attitudes, how did I unlearn it? And I see the differences of why I unlearn it. I know why I unlearn it actually, I wasn't born in America, that's one other thing. I was born in Jamaica. So I came to America when I was eight years old, I came as an observer, I was always observing. As a matter of fact, the title of, I'm doing a little plug for my book here, it's called Top of the Zinc Roof, and it's about observing. It's all my poetry in there, it's about being an observer. I was just like, when I was a kid in Jamaica, come to America, I didn’t have television, so my idea was that the airplane was gonna drop me off on my zinc roof.
So for me, I feel like I've been stuck on that zinc roof for a very long time, just observing. And so for me, all the observing, I learned the same thing what Robert Whitaker said, that's what I learned. And I internalized that, that I'm way down here on the bottom, that I don't need to be seen or heard. As a matter of fact, when I was in the system and they called a DCF on me and you know, ready to take my children from me. I went and got a white man, who work on Wall Street, that I was cleaning their house and babysitting for them. I'm like, you know, hey, Mr. C, I need you to come here to this hospital. And I didn't have the words then that I have now, that I could say. And I was able to know that they would listen to him and they wouldn't listen to me. And he stood up and he talked for me. They sat there and they talked about me like I wasn't even there in the room. And I remember when we left he was like, you know, they're saying the children are resilient, but they're resilient because of you. You know, so when I see people in the system, they're getting their kids taken away and things like that, I know that I was able to unlearn it because of the different background that I had, and just coming and observing. Because, like for myself, my sister, who's four years younger than me, who went through the same horrific things I went through as a child, she didn't make it. You know, she died of alcoholism in 2018. Four years younger than me, and she didn't make it out of all that pain. And the things that I would say to her is like, I was like, they did all that stuff to you. Don't let them win. Like, you know, they can't be living and enjoying all that wonderful life and you have that. You could have a wonderful life too. And the things I was saying, it is just so much internalized that it's hard to let that internalize stuff go. I think I heard James Baldwin say that from a black child is like 4 or 5 years old in America, it's like they're really learning to hate themselves, you know.
And it just made me think of, I came to America and my little sister, she used to put a towel on her head and do Sonny and Cher, we're old from the seventies, you know. I got you babe,I got you babe, with the towel, pretending to have really long hair. And you know, and I was just coming from where I was, just laying down on the ground and enjoying the sunshine and on an island. It's a different kind of thing. So it's like knowing, wait a second, there's a whole bunch of people all over the world living in all different kinds of ways. Why am I trying to get a white picket fence and a Mercedes-Benz? And I think if I don't have that, I'm not worthy and I'm not worthy to live and I don't have this, and I'm not this because I don't have that. I'm like, there’s people living in caves, there’s people living underbridges, there's people living in castles, mansions, all different ways to live. In Jamaica I didn't even stay in the house, we lived outdoors and the only time we went in the house is to sleep. So I remember that, that came back to me. And so that's, that's what saved me, remembering who I am.
Jim: I just wanna comment on what she said at the very end, what saved her was remembering who she is. So much of the system strips people of that, strips people of who they really are. So much of the system requires either the complete erasure of someone's identity, or ignores them, or just it, it dehumanizes people so much. And that damage is so deep and so profound that it goes beyond any sort of therapeutic treatment that's being offered. Which as we've talked about a bunch, there's very little in the way of therapeutic treatment being offered anyway. It takes someone who's already struggling and it adds to their burden, it doesn't help them. And it seems like for people struggling in these situations the need to recover from the mental health system is gonna be a deeper need than whatever it was that brought them into the system in the first place.
Jesse: Yeah, I maintained the criteria for a diagnosis of anorexia for about five years, but I have been struggling with PTSD from the treatment for that condition for over 20. And part of the trauma was a conflict of identity. Being repeatedly coerced into believing that commitment is not something that happened to me, it's something that I caused. That I must view being committable as part of who I am. And towards the end of the interview Mitzy brought up this idea of being committable and some of the ways that it can be, essentially, weaponized.
Mitzy Sky: You know, the thing that I thought about when I was thinking about committable, I was just thinking how committable I was or probably still am just because of the color of my skin, and my poverty level. Because there's, well, the last time I went to the hospital I was having a hard time, it was a bad relationship I was in, and I just didn't wanna go home. And I was in the hospital and I think the person, you know, they were just telling me to take off all your clothes and, you know, in the room. And I was like, take off all of my clothes? I'm just, You know, I'm here, I'm waiting to see the doctors. And he was like, take off your panties. And I was like, take off my panties? This is an emergency room at Bridgeport Hospital, I'm never gonna forget this. And I was like, take off my panties? I was like, no. And he would come back, back and forth in the room and say, did you take 'em off? And I wouldn't, and it sobered me up real quick. By the time the doctor came, I was like, I'm good, I'm okay, I can go now, I was just upset. And I was actually able to get out of there.
And a real committable moment for me was, I forgot how old I was, I was in my thirties cause my kids were a little bit older. I went into the hospital like on a Friday night and no, actually I was there for therapy. I was there for therapy and again, stuff was happening at home and I ended up in the therapist's office crying, I didn't feel like talking anymore. And you know, basically if you don't talk to them and you're just crying, then you're not good. She asked me, are you good? Do you feel safe? Do you wanna go home? I said, no, I don't feel like going home. She said, okay, I'll get you a room. They gave me some Ativan so I could stop crying, and they got me a room. And so that's the Friday night. So now the therapist that I know, she's gone home. And so then I'm on this strong medication, that's Ativan, and they called me to the conference room and there's a whole bunch of people sitting in the conference room and they asked me to sign some papers. I was like, how are you gonna ask me to sign those papers? And I'm just, you know, I'm on so much medication and I just wouldn't sign them. I found out those was papers to commit myself. Now here's the thing, if I had commit myself, now my stay has been like maybe three, four days or so. So I was there the Friday, the Saturday, Sunday, Monday. The therapist came to see me and she knew me, she said, oh yeah, you seem real better. I'll get the doctor to come see you. The doctor come and see me and the doctor say, okay, you can go home on Tuesday. Now, if I sign those papers, the stories that I've heard and what I've seen happen to people, I wouldn't have gone home on Tuesday. And the thing about not being able to go home on Tuesday, I would've been really angry because I would've wanna go home to my children. Cause remember at this stage of my life that's all I thought was my life, was my kids. That was it. That was all I knew. I had put all my hopes and dreams, everything was just my kids and I would've wanna gone home and see them, and they wouldn't allow me to. So I would've been really upset and my upset would've looked like mental illness for them. That's what they would've said, my upsetness would be mental illness. And from what I know from the people that I've gone and sat with them in those meetings, that wanted to go home like I would've wanted to go home, they didn't get to go home, I don't think I would've gone home either.
Jesse: So you sometimes, as part of this advocacy work, you will testify on behalf of someone who you've spoken to, what are those hearings like? Do you find that judges or attorneys are receptive to hearing from advocates?
Mitzy Sky: There was one time, a whole lot of us were sitting in a room and a doctor, they were just laid back and finally when I was talking and I was sharing some stuff, he actually sat up to look to see, you know, like, who's that talking and what is she talking about? But they're, I tell you, these people are cocky. They're cocky. They know that your voice is limited, you know, I've never gone to any hearing except for this one young woman, but she had been there for like six, seven years or so when they finally let her out. And they were actually letting her out that day when we were there to support her. All the other times I've gone and sat, and it's usually in some room at a hospital, it's never been at a courthouse, always at a hospital. So they're not even really letting you out to go to a courthouse to go do this, and the people usually end up staying. We wanna get out, we wanna go home, and it's usually, no, we are gonna keep you. I wish I could say I had one experience where I went and I spoke and my voice mattered. I don't have one.
Jesse: I really appreciate this idea of committable moments.
Jim: Yeah, right? I mean, they're supposed to be experts on assessing decision making and ability to take care of oneself. But they're not paying attention to the fact that they've given someone medication that has prevented them from being able to make decisions about being able to take care of themselves.
Jesse: Yeah, in these types of situations compliance is often considered to be a sign of competency.
Jim: But they would never say it that way, I'm sure they would say, no, no, no, we don't judge based on compliance. We judge based on clinical criteria and so on. But just because you may have read like a bunch of textbooks during your training, and there are these clinical criteria, doesn't mean that that's what you're applying. People have these narratives and these fantasy stories that they tell themselves and psychiatrists live in the world, and just like every other group of people have narratives that they tell themselves. And their narrative is that they judge on the basis of clinical criteria that they're applying dispassionately and rationally. But that is not true, they're not doing that. And so there's ways of having those human limitations that can help one mitigate against using one's position of power to harm others. And one of those ways, not to eliminate the impact of one's power on others, because you know, we're not totally self-aware. But people like psychiatrists for instance, if they are not approaching their task with a deep awareness of their limitations, and a deep awareness of the fact that, for instance, they're not gonna be as aware of cultural differences. They're not gonna be able to put their own emotional reactions aside necessarily. Those things are gonna factor into their decision if they aren't acting with that awareness, intentionally acting with that awareness, and not coming at these decisions from a space of humility, then they're gonna be a lot more destructive, right? I mean, psychiatrists could be much more humble in their approach and much more willing to really reflect on their own limitations, and I'm sure some do, but systemically, at a systemic level. There's no real pressure on them to be aware and humble and thinking, alright no, I am aware that I have these biases. And I am aware that I can make these mistakes. And I am aware that I shouldn't be cocky in these situations. And I'm aware of the impact that my decision is having on every person who comes through the door. And I don't know, just the kind of institutional arrogance of hospitals and psychiatrists is incredibly damaging.
Jesse: I think a lot of this comes down to accountability. Because in all the mental health laws in the US, that I am aware of, clinicians involved in those decisions have virtual immunity from lawsuits related to their actions as long as they're acting in good faith. And I have never really understood why that is, because you are empowering a group of professionals with the legal authority to strip other people of their rights based on opinion. And as we end this episode, I wanted to return to the end of the interview with Kathy Flaherty where I asked, in Connecticut if you have been harmed by the commitment process is there any way to seek accountability?
Kathy Flaherty: The legal system can't always provide what the person wants. Sometimes, you know, people want an apology. That's not gonna come through a lawsuit. Sometimes people want, you know, just somebody simply acknowledging that what happened to them was traumatic and wrong. Really, the only thing the legal system can get from this kind of case is usually money damages, and sometimes there's no amount of money that can really make up for the profound deprivation of freedom that involuntary detention and civil commitment provide. You know, there have been cases where you win on an appeal of the civil commitment, but at this point the person maybe has spent a month or two in the hospital wrongfully. Because the judge rules their initial order had no legal authority, but how do you measure that time in a life? You know, what dollar figure can you put on there to replace it and how do you deal with all the collateral consequences of that? I think that's another reason where people really don't challenge it. Because if you put it out there in court then, you know, yes you can ask for certain records to be sealed, but until that happens, you know, people tend to find things. You know, I was civilly committed in the fall of 1990, technically I can't own a gun because I was adjudicated mentally defective. Do I wanna own a gun? No. But it also made my admission to the bar a lot more complicated, and it took longer and it was conditional because I had that history of psychiatric treatment. And, you know, having listened to other episodes of your podcast, we have so many experiences in common, but it's the things that we don't know when whatever's happening to us, and we're going through that. I literally just, I don't know if I was laughing or crying listening to the episode where you described your detention because I'm like, that is exactly what happened to me. And it was so, it's almost unnerving just how similar these situations are, and it does prove that no, we weren't imagining it. That's just the way these systems work.
Jesse: Eight years after my first involuntary hospitalization there was a trial, a civil trial, where the psychologist who first had me detained for evaluation and the university he worked for had to explain their actions in court. On day one of the trial, the judge told me and my attorney that he taught part-time at the university and he would under no circumstances allow a decision in my favor. I was then told that I could seek another judge, but if I did try to find another judge it might take years before I got another trial date. So I decided to go forward with the trial. I spent eight days in that courtroom. I listened to three psychiatrists who had never met me testify that I deserved to be committed. I watched as my medical records were used against me, records that were taken completely out of context and distorted to fit a predetermined narrative. I watched the psychologist who had me sectioned say that he didn't actually think that I was suicidal, but when my brother came to University Health Services to give me a ride to the hospital for a medical observation, which is what we were both told needed to happen. When my brother arrived, this psychologist determined that we were exhibiting labile moods because when my brother made a really bad joke to try and ease the tension, I laughed at it. Even though an hour before I had been crying. I sought accountability and I heard that psychologist admit that the reason that he had me strapped into a gurney and confined to a locked ward was just so I could get a ride to the hospital. Which essentially means that he admitted he violated the law, he abused his authority, and no one, not the university, not the psychologist, not the judge, cared. Jim: So one of the things that she mentioned was that when people, you know, come out of a commitment and they've been harmed, that part of it is just the desire to have someone say, Hey, we messed up and this shouldn't have happened. And I'm really just deeply profoundly sorry that this happened. And genuinely meaning it and showing contrition. I mean, would that mean anything?
Jesse: For me? If someone had sincerely apologized, had honestly acknowledged to me that what happened was wrong, there never would've been a lawsuit.
Jim: So last question. How does it feel to hear that a listener, and not just a listener but a listener turned interviewee, listened to your story and was so validating for them in the sense that for Kathy, she said that it made her feel like it wasn't just her, it was the system itself.
Jesse: I don't know. I mean there is something, a spark of hope, a sense of purpose, that hearing that makes it all worth it. But it also reminds me of my story, it reminds me that the pain is still there and I am still frightened by it. So I only allow myself a brief moment to feel that hope, that validation, before I try to forget my feelings because it's all still right there. Like a tidal wave, just waiting for a shore. And I don't know what to do about that.
Jim: Right, okay, I will stop, uh, barraging you with questions now.
Jesse: I sincerely appreciate your questions Jim, and there will be plenty of opportunities for more because next time on Committable we'll be talking about mental health laws in Oregon.
Jesse: Committable is produced by Jim McQuaid. Michelle Stockman and me, Jesse Mangan. All music is from the Song Reasonable by Christopher G. Brown.